Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is.

As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church.

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following: "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]

Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.

And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.

This whole thing is kind of shocking coming from someone in full communion with Rome. unless Im totally confused.

PP

The patriarchate of which I am a member is in full communion with Rome, as the Melkite Catholic Patriarch (and the Holy Synod) has affirmed many times. Nevertheless, as the Melkite Patriarch said in the address I posted some time ago, we do not accept the later councils of the Roman Church as ecumenical.

Can you provide that post again? I'm interested to see if the Melkite Patriarch is just another modernist bishop or not.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

I do not question the faith of those like Todd and Joe. I think they really do love God. I really do. However I am questioning the decision to remain in a communion that contradicts their faith. I question it because we already have enough dissenters, and lumping more in is bad for the Roman Catholic Church.

I have added the word (in boldface print) that Papist always forgets to include in his posts.

Now taking into account that clarification, I positively affirm all of the teachings of the Melkite Catholic Church, and refuse to dissent from anything that the Melkite Catholic Patriarch and Melkite Catholic Holy Synod proclaim about the faith. Furthermore, I see no reason to leave my to leave the spiritual home that I have found in the Melkite Catholic Church simply because there is a disgruntled Roman Catholic on an internet forum who takes offense at the teachings of the Melkite Catholic Church.

I'm not a disgruntled Roman Catholic. I love being both Roman and Catholic. I'm just an orthodox Catholic who doesn't think that it is ok to dissent from the teachings of the Church because they ultimately come to us from Christ. You on the other hand see the Roman Catholic Church as existing on the same plane as the protestant demoninations. Your loss I suppose.

There is nothing "Protestant" about the teachings of the Melkite Catholic Church. Your problem is not with me, it is with the Melkite Catholic Church. And quite frankly you are not in a position to address the issues you have with the Melkite Catholic Church, because you have zero ecclesial influence in the Roman Church.

Frankly you are not the only Melkite I know...you and the Irish one...and I take issue with the fact that either one of you feel free to interpret for the clergy and bishops of the Melkite Church.

I doubt that any of them are nearly as smug and self-satisfied and would not speak of the papal Church as you are wont to do when you are feeling put upon by others.

Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is.

As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church.

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following: "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]

Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.

And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.

This whole thing is kind of shocking coming from someone in full communion with Rome. unless Im totally confused.

PP

The patriarchate of which I am a member is in full communion with Rome, as the Melkite Catholic Patriarch (and the Holy Synod) has affirmed many times. Nevertheless, as the Melkite Patriarch said in the address I posted some time ago, we do not accept the later councils of the Roman Church as ecumenical.

BTW, this is not a good argument to support your position. There are bishops in the Latin Church who are outright modernists, but they are still technically "in communion". Being "in communion" does not necessarily mean you are in the right.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is.

As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church.

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following: "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]

Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.

And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.

You are right. I don't make it dogmatic. The Roman Church does. And the Roman Church was still the Roman Church even when the Melkites were out of communion with us.

You are incorrect. The local synods of the Roman Church have no force outside of its own patriarchal boundries.

You are incorrect. When you guys were all in schim, we continued to be the Church and continued to have Ecumenical Councils. Sorry, you were invited to the party, but chose not to show up.

I agree, when you (i.e., Roman Catholics) were in schism from us (i.e., the Melkites) you were still the Roman Church, and thankfully our two Churches are now in full communion, and we respect each other as self-governing Churches within the Catholic communion of Churches.

Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."St. Theodore Studite

Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is.

As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church.

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following: "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]

Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.

And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.

This whole thing is kind of shocking coming from someone in full communion with Rome. unless Im totally confused.

PP

The patriarchate of which I am a member is in full communion with Rome, as the Melkite Catholic Patriarch (and the Holy Synod) has affirmed many times. Nevertheless, as the Melkite Patriarch said in the address I posted some time ago, we do not accept the later councils of the Roman Church as ecumenical.

BTW, this is not a good argument to support your position. There are bishops in the Latin Church who are outright modernists, but they are still technically "in communion". Being "in communion" does not necessarily mean you are in the right.

It is sad that you seem think of your patriarch as an ineffective leader who lets heretics remain in communion with him. Well, I guess you will have to do something about that when you become pope. Until then you will just have to suffer as a disgruntled Roman Catholic.

« Last Edit: April 27, 2012, 01:45:25 PM by Apotheoun »

Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."St. Theodore Studite

Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is.

As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church.

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following: "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]

Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.

And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.

You are right. I don't make it dogmatic. The Roman Church does. And the Roman Church was still the Roman Church even when the Melkites were out of communion with us.

You are incorrect. The local synods of the Roman Church have no force outside of its own patriarchal boundries.

You are incorrect. When you guys were all in schim, we continued to be the Church and continued to have Ecumenical Councils. Sorry, you were invited to the party, but chose not to show up.

I agree, when you (i.e., Roman Catholics) were in schism from us (i.e., the Melkites) you were still the Roman Church, and thankfully our two Churches are now in full communion, and we respect each other as self-governing Churches within the Catholic communion of Churches.

Oh, you missed the whole point. When there was a schism between us, we were the Church. You were not. We were the Church. You were a schismatic group like the SSPX used to be.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is.

As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church.

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following: "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]

Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.

And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.

This whole thing is kind of shocking coming from someone in full communion with Rome. unless Im totally confused.

PP

The patriarchate of which I am a member is in full communion with Rome, as the Melkite Catholic Patriarch (and the Holy Synod) has affirmed many times. Nevertheless, as the Melkite Patriarch said in the address I posted some time ago, we do not accept the later councils of the Roman Church as ecumenical.

BTW, this is not a good argument to support your position. There are bishops in the Latin Church who are outright modernists, but they are still technically "in communion". Being "in communion" does not necessarily mean you are in the right.

It is sad that you seem think of your patriarch as an ineffective leader who lets heretics remain in communion with him. Well, I guess you will have to do something about that when you become pope.

I don't fault the Pope for wanting to avoid another painful schism. I think he is a very effective leader trying to heard some disobedient cats. You have the modernists on the one side, and then "catholics" like you and Joe on the other.

« Last Edit: April 27, 2012, 01:46:27 PM by Papist »

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is.

As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church.

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following: "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]

Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.

And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.

This whole thing is kind of shocking coming from someone in full communion with Rome. unless Im totally confused.

PP

The patriarchate of which I am a member is in full communion with Rome, as the Melkite Catholic Patriarch (and the Holy Synod) has affirmed many times. Nevertheless, as the Melkite Patriarch said in the address I posted some time ago, we do not accept the later councils of the Roman Church as ecumenical.

Then IMHO communion is belittled by this and was political, in nature, and not a conviction of spirit.

I find it pretty silly that you can be in communion with an asterisk beside it.

I am a communicant with the Orthodox Chuch because I believe fully in its teachings. If I were not, I would not.

PP

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is.

As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church.

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following: "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]

Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.

And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.

You are right. I don't make it dogmatic. The Roman Church does. And the Roman Church was still the Roman Church even when the Melkites were out of communion with us.

You are incorrect. The local synods of the Roman Church have no force outside of its own patriarchal boundries.

You are incorrect. When you guys were all in schim, we continued to be the Church and continued to have Ecumenical Councils. Sorry, you were invited to the party, but chose not to show up.

I agree, when you (i.e., Roman Catholics) were in schism from us (i.e., the Melkites) you were still the Roman Church, and thankfully our two Churches are now in full communion, and we respect each other as self-governing Churches within the Catholic communion of Churches.

Oh, you missed the whole point. When there was a schism between us, we were the Church. You were not. We were the Church. You were a schismatic group like the SSPX used to be.

Though I would say that the SSPX was more faithful to the teachings of the Church all along, than are people like Todd and Joe.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is.

As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church.

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following: "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]

Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.

And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.

This whole thing is kind of shocking coming from someone in full communion with Rome. unless Im totally confused.

PP

The patriarchate of which I am a member is in full communion with Rome, as the Melkite Catholic Patriarch (and the Holy Synod) has affirmed many times. Nevertheless, as the Melkite Patriarch said in the address I posted some time ago, we do not accept the later councils of the Roman Church as ecumenical.

Then IMHO communion is belittled by this and was political, in nature, and not a conviction of spirit.

I find it pretty silly that you can be in communion with an asterisk beside it.

I am a communicant with the Orthodox Chuch because I believe fully in its teachings. If I were not, I would not.

PP

This

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

I do not question the faith of those like Todd and Joe. I think they really do love God. I really do. However I am questioning the decision to remain in a communion that contradicts their faith. I question it because we already have enough dissenters, and lumping more in is bad for the Roman Catholic Church.

I have added the word (in boldface print) that Papist always forgets to include in his posts.

Now taking into account that clarification, I positively affirm all of the teachings of the Melkite Catholic Church, and refuse to dissent from anything that the Melkite Catholic Patriarch and Melkite Catholic Holy Synod proclaim about the faith. Furthermore, I see no reason to leave my to leave the spiritual home that I have found in the Melkite Catholic Church simply because there is a disgruntled Roman Catholic on an internet forum who takes offense at the teachings of the Melkite Catholic Church.

I'm not a disgruntled Roman Catholic. I love being both Roman and Catholic. I'm just an orthodox Catholic who doesn't think that it is ok to dissent from the teachings of the Church because they ultimately come to us from Christ. You on the other hand see the Roman Catholic Church as existing on the same plane as the protestant demoninations. Your loss I suppose.

There is nothing "Protestant" about the teachings of the Melkite Catholic Church. Your problem is not with me, it is with the Melkite Catholic Church. And quite frankly you are not in a position to address the issues you have with the Melkite Catholic Church, because you have zero ecclesial influence in the Roman Church.

Frankly you are not the only Melkite I know...you and the Irish one...and I take issue with the fact that either one of you feel free to interpret for the clergy and bishops of the Melkite Church.

I doubt that any of them are nearly as smug and self-satisfied and would not speak of the papal Church as you are wont to do when you are feeling put upon by others.

I don't know you from Adam (or to be more exact Eve), and so I have no way of knowing who you do or do not have a friendship with. Vague statements and generalizations are not going to convince me to alter my position. I will remain steadfast in support of the Zoghby Initiative, which - by the way - remains the official position of the Melkite Catholic Patriarch and Holy Synod.

Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."St. Theodore Studite

Oh, you missed the whole point. When there was a schism between us, we were the Church. You were not. We were the Church. You were a schismatic group like the SSPX used to be.

One of the distinguishing factors about the Second Vatican Council was that the Pope invited the Orthodox and the Protestants. He was trying to create a truly ecumenical council.

I haven't seen too many times where the gesture was reciprocated.

There are so many Orthodox on this site who complain about how bad ecumenism supposedly is. And yet they always have something to say about how other churches do things. Listen to me, but go away! Huh?

If they want to shut down discussion, then shut down discussion. Quit or get off the pot.

Logged

My only weakness is, well, never mind

He said he had a horrible houseI looked in it and learnt to shut my mouth

Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is.

As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church.

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following: "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]

Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.

And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.

This whole thing is kind of shocking coming from someone in full communion with Rome. unless Im totally confused.

PP

The patriarchate of which I am a member is in full communion with Rome, as the Melkite Catholic Patriarch (and the Holy Synod) has affirmed many times. Nevertheless, as the Melkite Patriarch said in the address I posted some time ago, we do not accept the later councils of the Roman Church as ecumenical.

Then IMHO communion is belittled by this and was political, in nature, and not a conviction of spirit.

I find it pretty silly that you can be in communion with an asterisk beside it.

I am a communicant with the Orthodox Chuch because I believe fully in its teachings. If I were not, I would not.

PP

This

Twice in as many days....Hitler is throwing snowballs at Arius right now......

PP

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false?

This question only applies if the Melkites consider it to be a dogma.

Relatedly, and this may be a stupid question so apologies if it is, but do Melkites consider VI to be an Ecumenical Council? If they don't, wouldn't they not consider it a dogma?

Not a stupid question at all, and no they don't.

Okay, then another potentially stupid question ( ):

I find it pretty confusing that different churches can be in the same communion without recognizing the same # of Ecumenical Councils, especially when the discrepancy is as huge as Roman Catholics recognizing 21, and others recognizing only 7. If the canons of these councils are dogma, then it seems pretty mission-critical to be in agreement on what's Ecumenical and what isn't.

So I guess my question is... How does this work in the Catholic Church? How is it functional?

I suppose the answer to my question is: not very well.

I find it amazing that Catholics accuse the Orthodox of having an ecumenical council problem ("Why haven't you called one in 1,000 years? You can't!") when the Catholic communion doesn't strike me as a bastion of clarity on the matter, either.

Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is.

As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church.

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following: "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]

Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.

And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.

This whole thing is kind of shocking coming from someone in full communion with Rome. unless Im totally confused.

PP

The patriarchate of which I am a member is in full communion with Rome, as the Melkite Catholic Patriarch (and the Holy Synod) has affirmed many times. Nevertheless, as the Melkite Patriarch said in the address I posted some time ago, we do not accept the later councils of the Roman Church as ecumenical.

Then IMHO communion is belittled by this and was political, in nature, and not a conviction of spirit.

I find it pretty silly that you can be in communion with an asterisk beside it.

I am a communicant with the Orthodox Chuch because I believe fully in its teachings. If I were not, I would not.

PP

This

Twice in as many days....Hitler is throwing snowballs at Arius right now......

PP

I actually respect your views alot. You acknolwedge that there are genuine differences between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church, but I have not ever known you to exaggerate them. I respect that.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is.

As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church.

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following: "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]

Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.

And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.

This whole thing is kind of shocking coming from someone in full communion with Rome. unless Im totally confused.

PP

The patriarchate of which I am a member is in full communion with Rome, as the Melkite Catholic Patriarch (and the Holy Synod) has affirmed many times. Nevertheless, as the Melkite Patriarch said in the address I posted some time ago, we do not accept the later councils of the Roman Church as ecumenical.

Then IMHO communion is belittled by this and was political, in nature, and not a conviction of spirit.

I find it pretty silly that you can be in communion with an asterisk beside it.

I am a communicant with the Orthodox Chuch because I believe fully in its teachings. If I were not, I would not.

PP

The fact that you misunderstand the nature of ecclesial communion apparently rejecting the idea that it involves a reciprocal relationship between two (or more) Churches is sad, but there is probably little I can do to correct your error on this point.

Nevertheless, I would suggest that you read the book "His Broken Body" by Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck, because he gives a good summary of the patristic understanding of communion.

« Last Edit: April 27, 2012, 01:52:21 PM by Apotheoun »

Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."St. Theodore Studite

and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false?

This question only applies if the Melkites consider it to be a dogma.

Relatedly, and this may be a stupid question so apologies if it is, but do Melkites consider VI to be an Ecumenical Council? If they don't, wouldn't they not consider it a dogma?

Not a stupid question at all, and no they don't.

Okay, then another potentially stupid question ( ):

I find it pretty confusing that different churches can be in the same communion without recognizing the same # of Ecumenical Councils, especially when the discrepancy is as huge as Roman Catholics recognizing 21, and others recognizing only 7. If the canons of these councils are dogma, then it seems pretty mission-critical to be in agreement on what's Ecumenical and what isn't.

So I guess my question is... How does this work in the Catholic Church? How is it functional?

I suppose the answer to my question is: not very well.

I find it amazing that Catholics accuse the Orthodox of having an ecumenical council problem ("Why haven't you called one in 1,000 years? You can't!") when the Catholic communion doesn't strike me as a bastion of clarity on the matter, either.

The Catholic Church is clear on the matter. The problem here is not the Church but disobedient Catholics. And becuase the Pope wants to avoid another painful schism, this is not addressed as directly as some of us Traditionalists would like. I respect the Holy Father, and I understand his reasoning.

« Last Edit: April 27, 2012, 01:53:12 PM by Papist »

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false?

This question only applies if the Melkites consider it to be a dogma.

Relatedly, and this may be a stupid question so apologies if it is, but do Melkites consider VI to be an Ecumenical Council? If they don't, wouldn't they not consider it a dogma?

Not a stupid question at all, and no they don't.

Okay, then another potentially stupid question ( ):

I find it pretty confusing that different churches can be in the same communion without recognizing the same # of Ecumenical Councils, especially when the discrepancy is as huge as Roman Catholics recognizing 21, and others recognizing only 7. If the canons of these councils are dogma, then it seems pretty mission-critical to be in agreement on what's Ecumenical and what isn't.

So I guess my question is... How does this work in the Catholic Church? How is it functional?

I suppose the answer to my question is: not very well.

I find it amazing that Catholics accuse the Orthodox of having an ecumenical council problem ("Why haven't you called one in 1,000 years? You can't!") when the Catholic communion doesn't strike me as a bastion of clarity on the matter, either.

Anyone who looks at the ancient Church will see a very messy house indeed. The Church Fathers were not scholstic theologians . . . thank God!

Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."St. Theodore Studite

and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false?

This question only applies if the Melkites consider it to be a dogma.

Relatedly, and this may be a stupid question so apologies if it is, but do Melkites consider VI to be an Ecumenical Council? If they don't, wouldn't they not consider it a dogma?

Not a stupid question at all, and no they don't.

Okay, then another potentially stupid question ( ):

I find it pretty confusing that different churches can be in the same communion without recognizing the same # of Ecumenical Councils, especially when the discrepancy is as huge as Roman Catholics recognizing 21, and others recognizing only 7. If the canons of these councils are dogma, then it seems pretty mission-critical to be in agreement on what's Ecumenical and what isn't.

So I guess my question is... How does this work in the Catholic Church? How is it functional?

I suppose the answer to my question is: not very well.

I find it amazing that Catholics accuse the Orthodox of having an ecumenical council problem ("Why haven't you called one in 1,000 years? You can't!") when the Catholic communion doesn't strike me as a bastion of clarity on the matter, either.

The Catholic Church is clear on the matter. The problem here is not the Church but disobedient Catholics. And becuase the Pope wants to avoid another painful schism, this is not addressed as directly as some of us Traditionalists would like. I respect the Holy Father, and I understand his reasoning.

How do you know that is his reasoning? I'm not saying that you are necessarily wrong about it, but how do you know he isn't addressing this because he's trying to avoid schism? Has he said as much?

Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is.

As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church.

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following: "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]

Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.

And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.

This whole thing is kind of shocking coming from someone in full communion with Rome. unless Im totally confused.

PP

The patriarchate of which I am a member is in full communion with Rome, as the Melkite Catholic Patriarch (and the Holy Synod) has affirmed many times. Nevertheless, as the Melkite Patriarch said in the address I posted some time ago, we do not accept the later councils of the Roman Church as ecumenical.

Then IMHO communion is belittled by this and was political, in nature, and not a conviction of spirit.

I find it pretty silly that you can be in communion with an asterisk beside it.

I am a communicant with the Orthodox Chuch because I believe fully in its teachings. If I were not, I would not.

PP

The fact that you misunderstand the nature of ecclesial communion apparently rejecting the idea that it involves a reciprocal relationship between two (or more) Churches is sad, but there is probably little I can do to correct your error on this point.

Nevertheless, I would suggest that you read the book "His Broken Body" by Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck, because he gives a good summary of the patristic understanding of communion.

You misunderstand ecclesial communion. You think communion between Churches is an excuse to act like protestants. What happnes when another Church in the communion decides to start performing same sex marriage? Will that be ok? The line has to be drawn, whether you like it or not.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false?

This question only applies if the Melkites consider it to be a dogma.

Relatedly, and this may be a stupid question so apologies if it is, but do Melkites consider VI to be an Ecumenical Council? If they don't, wouldn't they not consider it a dogma?

Not a stupid question at all, and no they don't.

Okay, then another potentially stupid question ( ):

I find it pretty confusing that different churches can be in the same communion without recognizing the same # of Ecumenical Councils, especially when the discrepancy is as huge as Roman Catholics recognizing 21, and others recognizing only 7. If the canons of these councils are dogma, then it seems pretty mission-critical to be in agreement on what's Ecumenical and what isn't.

So I guess my question is... How does this work in the Catholic Church? How is it functional?

I suppose the answer to my question is: not very well.

I find it amazing that Catholics accuse the Orthodox of having an ecumenical council problem ("Why haven't you called one in 1,000 years? You can't!") when the Catholic communion doesn't strike me as a bastion of clarity on the matter, either.

The Catholic Church is clear on the matter. The problem here is not the Church but disobedient Catholics. And becuase the Pope wants to avoid another painful schism, this is not addressed as directly as some of us Traditionalists would like. I respect the Holy Father, and I understand his reasoning.

How do you know that is his reasoning? I'm not saying that you are necessarily wrong about it, but how do you know he isn't addressing this because he's trying to avoid schism? Has he said as much?

Well, the Pope believes in all the teachings of the Church and believes that all Catholics are bound to them. If this is true, and he doesn't excommunicate dissenting Bishops, the only thing I can think is that he is trying a softer pastoral approach for the good of the Church.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is.

As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church.

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following: "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]

Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.

And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.

You are right. I don't make it dogmatic. The Roman Church does. And the Roman Church was still the Roman Church even when the Melkites were out of communion with us.

You are incorrect. The local synods of the Roman Church have no force outside of its own patriarchal boundries.

You are incorrect. When you guys were all in schim, we continued to be the Church and continued to have Ecumenical Councils. Sorry, you were invited to the party, but chose not to show up.

I agree, when you (i.e., Roman Catholics) were in schism from us (i.e., the Melkites) you were still the Roman Church, and thankfully our two Churches are now in full communion, and we respect each other as self-governing Churches within the Catholic communion of Churches.

Oh, you missed the whole point. When there was a schism between us, we were the Church. You were not. We were the Church. You were a schismatic group like the SSPX used to be.

I did not miss your point, I simply do not accept it as a valid position to hold.

The Roman Church remained a Church while it was in schism from the Melkite Church, and vice versa.

Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."St. Theodore Studite

The Catholic Church is clear on the matter. The problem here is not the Church but disobedient Catholics

"The Pope doesn't have authority in my bedroom" would seem to agree with you....sadly.

Quote

The fact that you misunderstand the nature of ecclesial communion apparently rejecting the idea that it involves a reciprocal relationship between two (or more) Churches is sad, but there is probably little I can do to correct your error on this point

Or perhaps someone in your ecclesial past misunderstood the difference between communion and political expediency.

However, I'll take a gander at the book.

Quote

I actually respect your views alot. You acknolwedge that there are genuine differences between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church, but I have not ever known you to exaggerate them. I respect that

I appreciate that. I ususally leave my holy hand grenades at home

Quote

One of the distinguishing factors about the Second Vatican Council was that the Pope invited the Orthodox and the Protestants. He was trying to create a truly ecumenical council.

I haven't seen too many times where the gesture was reciprocated.

There are so many Orthodox on this site who complain about how bad ecumenism supposedly is. And yet they always have something to say about how other churches do things. Listen to me, but go away! Huh?

If they want to shut down discussion, then shut down discussion. Quit or get off the pot

Man oh man...the clarity. Much to our shame.

PP

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false?

This question only applies if the Melkites consider it to be a dogma.

Relatedly, and this may be a stupid question so apologies if it is, but do Melkites consider VI to be an Ecumenical Council? If they don't, wouldn't they not consider it a dogma?

Not a stupid question at all, and no they don't.

Okay, then another potentially stupid question ( ):

I find it pretty confusing that different churches can be in the same communion without recognizing the same # of Ecumenical Councils, especially when the discrepancy is as huge as Roman Catholics recognizing 21, and others recognizing only 7. If the canons of these councils are dogma, then it seems pretty mission-critical to be in agreement on what's Ecumenical and what isn't.

So I guess my question is... How does this work in the Catholic Church? How is it functional?

I suppose the answer to my question is: not very well.

I find it amazing that Catholics accuse the Orthodox of having an ecumenical council problem ("Why haven't you called one in 1,000 years? You can't!") when the Catholic communion doesn't strike me as a bastion of clarity on the matter, either.

Anyone who looks at the ancient Church will see a very messy house indeed. The Church Fathers were not scholstic theologians . . . thank God!

You mean like the Universal Doctor of the Church? St. Thomas Aquinas, pray for us.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is.

As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church.

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following: "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]

Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.

And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.

You are right. I don't make it dogmatic. The Roman Church does. And the Roman Church was still the Roman Church even when the Melkites were out of communion with us.

You are incorrect. The local synods of the Roman Church have no force outside of its own patriarchal boundries.

You are incorrect. When you guys were all in schim, we continued to be the Church and continued to have Ecumenical Councils. Sorry, you were invited to the party, but chose not to show up.

I agree, when you (i.e., Roman Catholics) were in schism from us (i.e., the Melkites) you were still the Roman Church, and thankfully our two Churches are now in full communion, and we respect each other as self-governing Churches within the Catholic communion of Churches.

Oh, you missed the whole point. When there was a schism between us, we were the Church. You were not. We were the Church. You were a schismatic group like the SSPX used to be.

I did not miss your point, I simply do not accept it as a valid position to hold.

The Roman Church remained a Church while it was in schism from the Melkite Church, and vice versa.

Oh, I see. So you disagree with the Creed when it states that Church is "One". Wow, you are not helping your case at all by rejecting articles of the Creed.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false?

This question only applies if the Melkites consider it to be a dogma.

Relatedly, and this may be a stupid question so apologies if it is, but do Melkites consider VI to be an Ecumenical Council? If they don't, wouldn't they not consider it a dogma?

Not a stupid question at all, and no they don't.

Okay, then another potentially stupid question ( ):

I find it pretty confusing that different churches can be in the same communion without recognizing the same # of Ecumenical Councils, especially when the discrepancy is as huge as Roman Catholics recognizing 21, and others recognizing only 7. If the canons of these councils are dogma, then it seems pretty mission-critical to be in agreement on what's Ecumenical and what isn't.

So I guess my question is... How does this work in the Catholic Church? How is it functional?

I suppose the answer to my question is: not very well.

I find it amazing that Catholics accuse the Orthodox of having an ecumenical council problem ("Why haven't you called one in 1,000 years? You can't!") when the Catholic communion doesn't strike me as a bastion of clarity on the matter, either.

The Catholic Church is clear on the matter. The problem here is not the Church but disobedient Catholics. And becuase the Pope wants to avoid another painful schism, this is not addressed as directly as some of us Traditionalists would like. I respect the Holy Father, and I understand his reasoning.

How do you know that is his reasoning? I'm not saying that you are necessarily wrong about it, but how do you know he isn't addressing this because he's trying to avoid schism? Has he said as much?

Well, the Pope believes in all the teachings of the Church and believes that all Catholics are bound to them. If this is true, and he doesn't excommunicate dissenting Bishops, the only thing I can think is that he is trying a softer pastoral approach for the good of the Church.

I am sure that the pope accepts Roman Catholic teachings, but sadly for you he has not tried to force those Latinized theories (theologoumena) on the Melkite Catholic Church. And by the way, he has had plenty of opportunities to do so. Perhaps your problem is not merely with the Melkite Catholic Church, perhaps your problem is also with the pope, who seems to be unwilling to do what you want done.

« Last Edit: April 27, 2012, 02:01:50 PM by Apotheoun »

Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."St. Theodore Studite

and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false?

This question only applies if the Melkites consider it to be a dogma.

Relatedly, and this may be a stupid question so apologies if it is, but do Melkites consider VI to be an Ecumenical Council? If they don't, wouldn't they not consider it a dogma?

Not a stupid question at all, and no they don't.

Okay, then another potentially stupid question ( ):

I find it pretty confusing that different churches can be in the same communion without recognizing the same # of Ecumenical Councils, especially when the discrepancy is as huge as Roman Catholics recognizing 21, and others recognizing only 7. If the canons of these councils are dogma, then it seems pretty mission-critical to be in agreement on what's Ecumenical and what isn't.

So I guess my question is... How does this work in the Catholic Church? How is it functional?

I suppose the answer to my question is: not very well.

I find it amazing that Catholics accuse the Orthodox of having an ecumenical council problem ("Why haven't you called one in 1,000 years? You can't!") when the Catholic communion doesn't strike me as a bastion of clarity on the matter, either.

The Catholic Church is clear on the matter. The problem here is not the Church but disobedient Catholics. And becuase the Pope wants to avoid another painful schism, this is not addressed as directly as some of us Traditionalists would like. I respect the Holy Father, and I understand his reasoning.

How do you know that is his reasoning? I'm not saying that you are necessarily wrong about it, but how do you know he isn't addressing this because he's trying to avoid schism? Has he said as much?

Well, the Pope believes in all the teachings of the Church and believes that all Catholics are bound to them. If this is true, and he doesn't excommunicate dissenting Bishops, the only thing I can think is that he is trying a softer pastoral approach for the good of the Church.

I am sure that the pope accepts Roman Catholic teachings, but sadly for you he has not tried to force that Latinized view on the Melkite Catholic Church. And he has had plenty of opportunities to do so. Perhaps your problem is not merely with the Melkite Catholic Church, perhaps your problem is also with the pope, who seems to be unwilling to do what you want done.

I don't have a problem with the Pope. I love him. Think he's great. You are the one who is disobedient to the Holy Father. What is more, I don't necessarily have a problem with the Melkite Church. I have a problem with modernists in the Melkite Church who think they can pick and choose which Catholic teachings they will follow.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false?

This question only applies if the Melkites consider it to be a dogma.

Relatedly, and this may be a stupid question so apologies if it is, but do Melkites consider VI to be an Ecumenical Council? If they don't, wouldn't they not consider it a dogma?

Not a stupid question at all, and no they don't.

Okay, then another potentially stupid question ( ):

I find it pretty confusing that different churches can be in the same communion without recognizing the same # of Ecumenical Councils, especially when the discrepancy is as huge as Roman Catholics recognizing 21, and others recognizing only 7. If the canons of these councils are dogma, then it seems pretty mission-critical to be in agreement on what's Ecumenical and what isn't.

So I guess my question is... How does this work in the Catholic Church? How is it functional?

I suppose the answer to my question is: not very well.

I find it amazing that Catholics accuse the Orthodox of having an ecumenical council problem ("Why haven't you called one in 1,000 years? You can't!") when the Catholic communion doesn't strike me as a bastion of clarity on the matter, either.

The Catholic Church is clear on the matter. The problem here is not the Church but disobedient Catholics. And becuase the Pope wants to avoid another painful schism, this is not addressed as directly as some of us Traditionalists would like. I respect the Holy Father, and I understand his reasoning.

How do you know that is his reasoning? I'm not saying that you are necessarily wrong about it, but how do you know he isn't addressing this because he's trying to avoid schism? Has he said as much?

Well, the Pope believes in all the teachings of the Church and believes that all Catholics are bound to them. If this is true, and he doesn't excommunicate dissenting Bishops, the only thing I can think is that he is trying a softer pastoral approach for the good of the Church.

What if he believes "all the teachings of the Church" that Catholics are bound to are the first 7 Ecumenical Councils? What if he agrees with the Melkites? And his soft pastoral approach is actually towards Traditionalists, that instead of addressing this outright, ripping the band-aid off, he sees himself starting the trajectory towards reunion with the Orthodox more slowly, perhaps to keep more souls in his flock?

Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is.

As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church.

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following: "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]

Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.

And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.

You are right. I don't make it dogmatic. The Roman Church does. And the Roman Church was still the Roman Church even when the Melkites were out of communion with us.

You are incorrect. The local synods of the Roman Church have no force outside of its own patriarchal boundries.

You are incorrect. When you guys were all in schim, we continued to be the Church and continued to have Ecumenical Councils. Sorry, you were invited to the party, but chose not to show up.

I agree, when you (i.e., Roman Catholics) were in schism from us (i.e., the Melkites) you were still the Roman Church, and thankfully our two Churches are now in full communion, and we respect each other as self-governing Churches within the Catholic communion of Churches.

Oh, you missed the whole point. When there was a schism between us, we were the Church. You were not. We were the Church. You were a schismatic group like the SSPX used to be.

I did not miss your point, I simply do not accept it as a valid position to hold.

The Roman Church remained a Church while it was in schism from the Melkite Church, and vice versa.

Oh, I see. So you disagree with the Creed when it states that Church is "One". Wow, you are not helping your case at all by rejecting articles of the Creed.

No, actually I agree completely with the creed, because I hold that the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is made present, whole and entire, wherever the Eucharist is validly celebrated.

Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."St. Theodore Studite

and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false?

This question only applies if the Melkites consider it to be a dogma.

Relatedly, and this may be a stupid question so apologies if it is, but do Melkites consider VI to be an Ecumenical Council? If they don't, wouldn't they not consider it a dogma?

Not a stupid question at all, and no they don't.

Okay, then another potentially stupid question ( ):

I find it pretty confusing that different churches can be in the same communion without recognizing the same # of Ecumenical Councils, especially when the discrepancy is as huge as Roman Catholics recognizing 21, and others recognizing only 7. If the canons of these councils are dogma, then it seems pretty mission-critical to be in agreement on what's Ecumenical and what isn't.

So I guess my question is... How does this work in the Catholic Church? How is it functional?

I suppose the answer to my question is: not very well.

I find it amazing that Catholics accuse the Orthodox of having an ecumenical council problem ("Why haven't you called one in 1,000 years? You can't!") when the Catholic communion doesn't strike me as a bastion of clarity on the matter, either.

The Catholic Church is clear on the matter. The problem here is not the Church but disobedient Catholics. And becuase the Pope wants to avoid another painful schism, this is not addressed as directly as some of us Traditionalists would like. I respect the Holy Father, and I understand his reasoning.

How do you know that is his reasoning? I'm not saying that you are necessarily wrong about it, but how do you know he isn't addressing this because he's trying to avoid schism? Has he said as much?

Well, the Pope believes in all the teachings of the Church and believes that all Catholics are bound to them. If this is true, and he doesn't excommunicate dissenting Bishops, the only thing I can think is that he is trying a softer pastoral approach for the good of the Church.

I am sure that the pope accepts Roman Catholic teachings, but sadly for you he has not tried to force those Latinized theories (theologoumena) on the Melkite Catholic Church. And by the way, he has had plenty of opportunities to do so. Perhaps your problem is not merely with the Melkite Catholic Church, perhaps your problem is also with the pope, who seems to be unwilling to do what you want done.

Oh, and btw, asking Cahtolics to believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church is not a Latinization. It's just asking you to be Catholic. If you wanna be Catholic, then be Catholic. If you don't, find a denomination that is better suited to you. At least that would be honest.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is.

As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church.

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following: "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]

Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.

And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.

You are right. I don't make it dogmatic. The Roman Church does. And the Roman Church was still the Roman Church even when the Melkites were out of communion with us.

You are incorrect. The local synods of the Roman Church have no force outside of its own patriarchal boundries.

You are incorrect. When you guys were all in schim, we continued to be the Church and continued to have Ecumenical Councils. Sorry, you were invited to the party, but chose not to show up.

I agree, when you (i.e., Roman Catholics) were in schism from us (i.e., the Melkites) you were still the Roman Church, and thankfully our two Churches are now in full communion, and we respect each other as self-governing Churches within the Catholic communion of Churches.

Oh, you missed the whole point. When there was a schism between us, we were the Church. You were not. We were the Church. You were a schismatic group like the SSPX used to be.

I did not miss your point, I simply do not accept it as a valid position to hold.

The Roman Church remained a Church while it was in schism from the Melkite Church, and vice versa.

Oh, I see. So you disagree with the Creed when it states that Church is "One". Wow, you are not helping your case at all by rejecting articles of the Creed.

No, actually I agree completely with the creed, because I hold that the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is made present, whole and entire, wherever the Eucharist is validly celebrated.

So you are branch theorist now. Ok, now I understand you better. You are neither Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox. You have just made up your own religion. This is why I think you are LARPing.

« Last Edit: April 27, 2012, 02:04:49 PM by Papist »

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false?

This question only applies if the Melkites consider it to be a dogma.

Relatedly, and this may be a stupid question so apologies if it is, but do Melkites consider VI to be an Ecumenical Council? If they don't, wouldn't they not consider it a dogma?

Not a stupid question at all, and no they don't.

Okay, then another potentially stupid question ( ):

I find it pretty confusing that different churches can be in the same communion without recognizing the same # of Ecumenical Councils, especially when the discrepancy is as huge as Roman Catholics recognizing 21, and others recognizing only 7. If the canons of these councils are dogma, then it seems pretty mission-critical to be in agreement on what's Ecumenical and what isn't.

So I guess my question is... How does this work in the Catholic Church? How is it functional?

I suppose the answer to my question is: not very well.

I find it amazing that Catholics accuse the Orthodox of having an ecumenical council problem ("Why haven't you called one in 1,000 years? You can't!") when the Catholic communion doesn't strike me as a bastion of clarity on the matter, either.

The Catholic Church is clear on the matter. The problem here is not the Church but disobedient Catholics. And becuase the Pope wants to avoid another painful schism, this is not addressed as directly as some of us Traditionalists would like. I respect the Holy Father, and I understand his reasoning.

How do you know that is his reasoning? I'm not saying that you are necessarily wrong about it, but how do you know he isn't addressing this because he's trying to avoid schism? Has he said as much?

Well, the Pope believes in all the teachings of the Church and believes that all Catholics are bound to them. If this is true, and he doesn't excommunicate dissenting Bishops, the only thing I can think is that he is trying a softer pastoral approach for the good of the Church.

What if he believes "all the teachings of the Church" that Catholics are bound to are the first 7 Ecumenical Councils? What if he agrees with the Melkites? And his soft pastoral approach is actually towards Traditionalists, that instead of addressing this outright, ripping the band-aid off, he sees himself starting the trajectory towards reunion with the Orthodox more slowly, perhaps to keep more souls in his flock?

Would this not also be possible?

Hope springs eternal!

Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."St. Theodore Studite

Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is.

As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church.

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following: "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]

Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.

And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.

This whole thing is kind of shocking coming from someone in full communion with Rome. unless Im totally confused.

PP

The patriarchate of which I am a member is in full communion with Rome, as the Melkite Catholic Patriarch (and the Holy Synod) has affirmed many times. Nevertheless, as the Melkite Patriarch said in the address I posted some time ago, we do not accept the later councils of the Roman Church as ecumenical.

Then IMHO communion is belittled by this and was political, in nature, and not a conviction of spirit.

I find it pretty silly that you can be in communion with an asterisk beside it.

I am a communicant with the Orthodox Chuch because I believe fully in its teachings. If I were not, I would not.

PP

The fact that you misunderstand the nature of ecclesial communion apparently rejecting the idea that it involves a reciprocal relationship between two (or more) Churches is sad, but there is probably little I can do to correct your error on this point.

Nevertheless, I would suggest that you read the book "His Broken Body" by Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck, because he gives a good summary of the patristic understanding of communion.

This little paper, posted by SCOBA on its website, a Joint Statement of the North American Catholic Orthodox Diolouge, as it relates the Orthodox position on that body reflects my strong, personal beliefs. A few excerpts may illustrate an important point here:

"In such a communion of (reunited Roman and Orthodox) Churches, the role of the bishop of Rome would have to be carefully defined, both in continuity with the ancient structural principles of Christianity and in response to the need for a unified Christian message in the world of today. Although the details of that role would have to be worked out in a synodal way, and would require a genuine willingness on both sides to accommodate one another’s concerns, a few likely characteristics of this renewed Roman primacy would be these:

a) The bishop of Rome would be, by ancient custom, the “first” of the world’s bishops and of the regional patriarchs. His “primacy of honor” would mean, as it meant in the early Church, not simply honorific precedence but the authority to make real decisions, appropriate to the contexts in which he is acting. His relationship to the Eastern Churches and their bishops, however, would have to be substantially different from the relationship now accepted in the Latin Church. The present Eastern Catholic Churches would relate to the bishop of Rome in the same way as the present Orthodox Churches would. The leadership of the pope would always be realized by way of a serious and practical commitment to synodality and collegiality.

b) In accord with the teaching of both Vatican councils, the bishop of Rome would be understood by all as having authority only within a synodal/collegial context: as member as well as head of the college of bishops, as senior patriarch among the primates of the Churches, and as servant of universal communion. The “ordinary and immediate” jurisdiction of every bishop within his particular Church, would be “affirmed, strengthened and vindicated” by the exercise of the bishop of Rome’s ministry (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 27; cf. Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus 3). In a reunited Church, this understanding of papal and episcopal authority, as complementary and mutually enhancing, would have to be expanded to include the much more complex patterns of local, primatial, and patriarchal leadership that have developed in the Eastern Churches since patristic times.

http://www.scoba.us/articles/towards-a-unified-church.html

I suspect that the Melkite Church and at least the BCC based on her catechism material, would generally concur with the Orthodox statement, only adding that they believe that they have found a way in which to achieve what the Orthodox seek. While I disagree, I respect them.

I do not understand Roman Catholics who find NO WAY to do anything except concur in all of the tortured and logically inconsistent interpretations of the teachings of the Roman Church which deal with supremacy and infallibility. Their view of unity with us is consistent with Grant's terms to Robert E. Lee. I've said that before....

Some of you will no doubt have to conclude that a future Pope and a future Roman Church which might find a path to real unity with the Orthodox have abandoned the Catholic faith and you will be sedevacantists and defenders of Isa's favorite pejorative- ultramontanism. Don't worry though, you will have counterparts from Orthodoxy should that occur and you will all be able to continue your back and forths with even more vigor.

As much as it is painful to admit as much, it seems that the most some of us are able to concede is that holding hands and singing Amazing Grace is fun, but not too effective in promoting real unity.

and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false?

This question only applies if the Melkites consider it to be a dogma.

Relatedly, and this may be a stupid question so apologies if it is, but do Melkites consider VI to be an Ecumenical Council? If they don't, wouldn't they not consider it a dogma?

Not a stupid question at all, and no they don't.

Okay, then another potentially stupid question ( ):

I find it pretty confusing that different churches can be in the same communion without recognizing the same # of Ecumenical Councils, especially when the discrepancy is as huge as Roman Catholics recognizing 21, and others recognizing only 7. If the canons of these councils are dogma, then it seems pretty mission-critical to be in agreement on what's Ecumenical and what isn't.

So I guess my question is... How does this work in the Catholic Church? How is it functional?

I suppose the answer to my question is: not very well.

I find it amazing that Catholics accuse the Orthodox of having an ecumenical council problem ("Why haven't you called one in 1,000 years? You can't!") when the Catholic communion doesn't strike me as a bastion of clarity on the matter, either.

The Catholic Church is clear on the matter. The problem here is not the Church but disobedient Catholics. And becuase the Pope wants to avoid another painful schism, this is not addressed as directly as some of us Traditionalists would like. I respect the Holy Father, and I understand his reasoning.

How do you know that is his reasoning? I'm not saying that you are necessarily wrong about it, but how do you know he isn't addressing this because he's trying to avoid schism? Has he said as much?

Well, the Pope believes in all the teachings of the Church and believes that all Catholics are bound to them. If this is true, and he doesn't excommunicate dissenting Bishops, the only thing I can think is that he is trying a softer pastoral approach for the good of the Church.

What if he believes "all the teachings of the Church" that Catholics are bound to are the first 7 Ecumenical Councils? What if he agrees with the Melkites? And his soft pastoral approach is actually towards Traditionalists, that instead of addressing this outright, ripping the band-aid off, he sees himself starting the trajectory towards reunion with the Orthodox more slowly, perhaps to keep more souls in his flock?

Would this not also be possible?

Nope. This is still him picking and choosing. What if an Eastern Orthodox Christian decided that only the first three councils were truly ecumencial? Would he still be an Eastern Orthodox Christian?

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false?

This question only applies if the Melkites consider it to be a dogma.

Relatedly, and this may be a stupid question so apologies if it is, but do Melkites consider VI to be an Ecumenical Council? If they don't, wouldn't they not consider it a dogma?

Not a stupid question at all, and no they don't.

Okay, then another potentially stupid question ( ):

I find it pretty confusing that different churches can be in the same communion without recognizing the same # of Ecumenical Councils, especially when the discrepancy is as huge as Roman Catholics recognizing 21, and others recognizing only 7. If the canons of these councils are dogma, then it seems pretty mission-critical to be in agreement on what's Ecumenical and what isn't.

So I guess my question is... How does this work in the Catholic Church? How is it functional?

I suppose the answer to my question is: not very well.

I find it amazing that Catholics accuse the Orthodox of having an ecumenical council problem ("Why haven't you called one in 1,000 years? You can't!") when the Catholic communion doesn't strike me as a bastion of clarity on the matter, either.

The Catholic Church is clear on the matter. The problem here is not the Church but disobedient Catholics. And becuase the Pope wants to avoid another painful schism, this is not addressed as directly as some of us Traditionalists would like. I respect the Holy Father, and I understand his reasoning.

How do you know that is his reasoning? I'm not saying that you are necessarily wrong about it, but how do you know he isn't addressing this because he's trying to avoid schism? Has he said as much?

Well, the Pope believes in all the teachings of the Church and believes that all Catholics are bound to them. If this is true, and he doesn't excommunicate dissenting Bishops, the only thing I can think is that he is trying a softer pastoral approach for the good of the Church.

What if he believes "all the teachings of the Church" that Catholics are bound to are the first 7 Ecumenical Councils? What if he agrees with the Melkites? And his soft pastoral approach is actually towards Traditionalists, that instead of addressing this outright, ripping the band-aid off, he sees himself starting the trajectory towards reunion with the Orthodox more slowly, perhaps to keep more souls in his flock?

Would this not also be possible?

Hope springs eternal for modernist cafeteria "catholicism".

Fixed that for you.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is.

As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church.

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following: "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]

Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.

And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.

You are right. I don't make it dogmatic. The Roman Church does. And the Roman Church was still the Roman Church even when the Melkites were out of communion with us.

You are incorrect. The local synods of the Roman Church have no force outside of its own patriarchal boundries.

You are incorrect. When you guys were all in schim, we continued to be the Church and continued to have Ecumenical Councils. Sorry, you were invited to the party, but chose not to show up.

I agree, when you (i.e., Roman Catholics) were in schism from us (i.e., the Melkites) you were still the Roman Church, and thankfully our two Churches are now in full communion, and we respect each other as self-governing Churches within the Catholic communion of Churches.

Oh, you missed the whole point. When there was a schism between us, we were the Church. You were not. We were the Church. You were a schismatic group like the SSPX used to be.

I did not miss your point, I simply do not accept it as a valid position to hold.

The Roman Church remained a Church while it was in schism from the Melkite Church, and vice versa.

Oh, I see. So you disagree with the Creed when it states that Church is "One". Wow, you are not helping your case at all by rejecting articles of the Creed.

No, actually I agree completely with the creed, because I hold that the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is made present, whole and entire, wherever the Eucharist is validly celebrated.

So you are branch theorist now. Ok, now I understand you better. You are neither Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox. You have just made up your own religion.

No, where have I mentioned "branches"? I have said that the one Catholic and Apostolic Church is made present wherever the Eucharist is validly celebrated. The one Catholic Church exists only in and through the many local (diocesan / eparchial) Churches, and all of these Churches together form a common union, i.e., a communion, of self-governing Churches under the leadership of a bishop.

Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."St. Theodore Studite

Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is.

As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church.

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following: "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]

Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.

And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.

This whole thing is kind of shocking coming from someone in full communion with Rome. unless Im totally confused.

PP

The patriarchate of which I am a member is in full communion with Rome, as the Melkite Catholic Patriarch (and the Holy Synod) has affirmed many times. Nevertheless, as the Melkite Patriarch said in the address I posted some time ago, we do not accept the later councils of the Roman Church as ecumenical.

Then IMHO communion is belittled by this and was political, in nature, and not a conviction of spirit.

I find it pretty silly that you can be in communion with an asterisk beside it.

I am a communicant with the Orthodox Chuch because I believe fully in its teachings. If I were not, I would not.

PP

The fact that you misunderstand the nature of ecclesial communion apparently rejecting the idea that it involves a reciprocal relationship between two (or more) Churches is sad, but there is probably little I can do to correct your error on this point.

Nevertheless, I would suggest that you read the book "His Broken Body" by Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck, because he gives a good summary of the patristic understanding of communion.

This little paper, posted by SCOBA on its website, a Joint Statement of the North American Catholic Orthodox Diolouge, as it relates the Orthodox position on that body reflects my strong, personal beliefs. A few excerpts may illustrate an important point here:

"In such a communion of (reunited Roman and Orthodox) Churches, the role of the bishop of Rome would have to be carefully defined, both in continuity with the ancient structural principles of Christianity and in response to the need for a unified Christian message in the world of today. Although the details of that role would have to be worked out in a synodal way, and would require a genuine willingness on both sides to accommodate one another’s concerns, a few likely characteristics of this renewed Roman primacy would be these:

a) The bishop of Rome would be, by ancient custom, the “first” of the world’s bishops and of the regional patriarchs. His “primacy of honor” would mean, as it meant in the early Church, not simply honorific precedence but the authority to make real decisions, appropriate to the contexts in which he is acting. His relationship to the Eastern Churches and their bishops, however, would have to be substantially different from the relationship now accepted in the Latin Church. The present Eastern Catholic Churches would relate to the bishop of Rome in the same way as the present Orthodox Churches would. The leadership of the pope would always be realized by way of a serious and practical commitment to synodality and collegiality.

b) In accord with the teaching of both Vatican councils, the bishop of Rome would be understood by all as having authority only within a synodal/collegial context: as member as well as head of the college of bishops, as senior patriarch among the primates of the Churches, and as servant of universal communion. The “ordinary and immediate” jurisdiction of every bishop within his particular Church, would be “affirmed, strengthened and vindicated” by the exercise of the bishop of Rome’s ministry (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 27; cf. Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus 3). In a reunited Church, this understanding of papal and episcopal authority, as complementary and mutually enhancing, would have to be expanded to include the much more complex patterns of local, primatial, and patriarchal leadership that have developed in the Eastern Churches since patristic times.

http://www.scoba.us/articles/towards-a-unified-church.html

I suspect that the Melkite Church and at least the BCC based on her catechism material, would generally concur with the Orthodox statement, only adding that they believe that they have found a way in which to achieve what the Orthodox seek. While I disagree, I respect them.

I do not understand Roman Catholics who find NO WAY to do anything except concur in all of the tortured and logically inconsistent interpretations of the teachings of the Roman Church which deal with supremacy and infallibility. Their view of unity with us is consistent with Grant's terms to Robert E. Lee. I've said that before....

Some of you will no doubt have to conclude that a future Pope and a future Roman Church which might find a path to real unity with the Orthodox have abandoned the Catholic faith and you will be sedevacantists and defenders of Isa's favorite pejorative- ultramontanism. Don't worry though, you will have counterparts from Orthodoxy should that occur and you will all be able to continue your back and forths with even more vigor.

As much as it is painful to admit as much, it seems that the most some of us are able to concede is that holding hands and singing Amazing Grace is fun, but not too effective in promoting real unity.

A faithful Catholic could not support a unity that is false, and not grounded in Truth. Either the Catholic Church teaches the truth, or it does not.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false?

This question only applies if the Melkites consider it to be a dogma.

Relatedly, and this may be a stupid question so apologies if it is, but do Melkites consider VI to be an Ecumenical Council? If they don't, wouldn't they not consider it a dogma?

Not a stupid question at all, and no they don't.

Okay, then another potentially stupid question ( ):

I find it pretty confusing that different churches can be in the same communion without recognizing the same # of Ecumenical Councils, especially when the discrepancy is as huge as Roman Catholics recognizing 21, and others recognizing only 7. If the canons of these councils are dogma, then it seems pretty mission-critical to be in agreement on what's Ecumenical and what isn't.

So I guess my question is... How does this work in the Catholic Church? How is it functional?

I suppose the answer to my question is: not very well.

I find it amazing that Catholics accuse the Orthodox of having an ecumenical council problem ("Why haven't you called one in 1,000 years? You can't!") when the Catholic communion doesn't strike me as a bastion of clarity on the matter, either.

The Catholic Church is clear on the matter. The problem here is not the Church but disobedient Catholics. And becuase the Pope wants to avoid another painful schism, this is not addressed as directly as some of us Traditionalists would like. I respect the Holy Father, and I understand his reasoning.

How do you know that is his reasoning? I'm not saying that you are necessarily wrong about it, but how do you know he isn't addressing this because he's trying to avoid schism? Has he said as much?

Well, the Pope believes in all the teachings of the Church and believes that all Catholics are bound to them. If this is true, and he doesn't excommunicate dissenting Bishops, the only thing I can think is that he is trying a softer pastoral approach for the good of the Church.

What if he believes "all the teachings of the Church" that Catholics are bound to are the first 7 Ecumenical Councils? What if he agrees with the Melkites? And his soft pastoral approach is actually towards Traditionalists, that instead of addressing this outright, ripping the band-aid off, he sees himself starting the trajectory towards reunion with the Orthodox more slowly, perhaps to keep more souls in his flock?

Would this not also be possible?

Hope springs eternal for modernist cafeteria "catholicism".

Fixed that for you.

That is quite funny, because it is the Roman Church that has a problem with modernism, not the Melkite Catholic Church.

Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."St. Theodore Studite

Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is.

As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church.

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following: "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]

Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.

And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.

You are right. I don't make it dogmatic. The Roman Church does. And the Roman Church was still the Roman Church even when the Melkites were out of communion with us.

You are incorrect. The local synods of the Roman Church have no force outside of its own patriarchal boundries.

You are incorrect. When you guys were all in schim, we continued to be the Church and continued to have Ecumenical Councils. Sorry, you were invited to the party, but chose not to show up.

I agree, when you (i.e., Roman Catholics) were in schism from us (i.e., the Melkites) you were still the Roman Church, and thankfully our two Churches are now in full communion, and we respect each other as self-governing Churches within the Catholic communion of Churches.

Oh, you missed the whole point. When there was a schism between us, we were the Church. You were not. We were the Church. You were a schismatic group like the SSPX used to be.

I did not miss your point, I simply do not accept it as a valid position to hold.

The Roman Church remained a Church while it was in schism from the Melkite Church, and vice versa.

Oh, I see. So you disagree with the Creed when it states that Church is "One". Wow, you are not helping your case at all by rejecting articles of the Creed.

No, actually I agree completely with the creed, because I hold that the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is made present, whole and entire, wherever the Eucharist is validly celebrated.

So you are branch theorist now. Ok, now I understand you better. You are neither Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox. You have just made up your own religion.

No, where have I mentioned "branches"? I have said that the one Catholic and Apostolic Church is made present wherever the Eucharist is validly celebrated. The one Catholic Church exists only in and through the many local (diocesan / eparchial) Churches, and all of these Churches together form a common union, i.e., a communion, of self-governing Churches under the leadership of a bishop.

The branches are clear. You think that two bodies not in commmunion with one another are both the Catholic Church. Neither the Eastern Orthodox, nor the Catholic Church agree with that.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false?

This question only applies if the Melkites consider it to be a dogma.

Relatedly, and this may be a stupid question so apologies if it is, but do Melkites consider VI to be an Ecumenical Council? If they don't, wouldn't they not consider it a dogma?

Not a stupid question at all, and no they don't.

Okay, then another potentially stupid question ( ):

I find it pretty confusing that different churches can be in the same communion without recognizing the same # of Ecumenical Councils, especially when the discrepancy is as huge as Roman Catholics recognizing 21, and others recognizing only 7. If the canons of these councils are dogma, then it seems pretty mission-critical to be in agreement on what's Ecumenical and what isn't.

So I guess my question is... How does this work in the Catholic Church? How is it functional?

I suppose the answer to my question is: not very well.

I find it amazing that Catholics accuse the Orthodox of having an ecumenical council problem ("Why haven't you called one in 1,000 years? You can't!") when the Catholic communion doesn't strike me as a bastion of clarity on the matter, either.

The Catholic Church is clear on the matter. The problem here is not the Church but disobedient Catholics. And becuase the Pope wants to avoid another painful schism, this is not addressed as directly as some of us Traditionalists would like. I respect the Holy Father, and I understand his reasoning.

How do you know that is his reasoning? I'm not saying that you are necessarily wrong about it, but how do you know he isn't addressing this because he's trying to avoid schism? Has he said as much?

Well, the Pope believes in all the teachings of the Church and believes that all Catholics are bound to them. If this is true, and he doesn't excommunicate dissenting Bishops, the only thing I can think is that he is trying a softer pastoral approach for the good of the Church.

What if he believes "all the teachings of the Church" that Catholics are bound to are the first 7 Ecumenical Councils? What if he agrees with the Melkites? And his soft pastoral approach is actually towards Traditionalists, that instead of addressing this outright, ripping the band-aid off, he sees himself starting the trajectory towards reunion with the Orthodox more slowly, perhaps to keep more souls in his flock?

Would this not also be possible?

Nope. This is still him picking and choosing. What if an Eastern Orthodox Christian decided that only the first three councils were truly ecumencial? Would he still be an Eastern Orthodox Christian?

Although this is conjecture, perhaps the reasons why the Orthodox have failed to convene a true 'council' in the sense of the original ones of the Undivided Church is not due to the absence of an Orthodox emperor - but because the fathers of the east were not so enamored of themselves as to proclaim a council 'Ecumenical' when there was in fact no longer an Undivided Church?A seat was empty in Pentarchy because of the schism.

This is not inconsistent with our proclamation that we are the Church of the Fathers, perhaps it is a modest nod to the reality of the world. After all Jesus teaches us to welcome the prodigal and to slay the fatted calf and make joy upon his return - rather than to sulk and brood like the loyal brother.

and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false?

This question only applies if the Melkites consider it to be a dogma.

Relatedly, and this may be a stupid question so apologies if it is, but do Melkites consider VI to be an Ecumenical Council? If they don't, wouldn't they not consider it a dogma?

Not a stupid question at all, and no they don't.

Okay, then another potentially stupid question ( ):

I find it pretty confusing that different churches can be in the same communion without recognizing the same # of Ecumenical Councils, especially when the discrepancy is as huge as Roman Catholics recognizing 21, and others recognizing only 7. If the canons of these councils are dogma, then it seems pretty mission-critical to be in agreement on what's Ecumenical and what isn't.

So I guess my question is... How does this work in the Catholic Church? How is it functional?

I suppose the answer to my question is: not very well.

I find it amazing that Catholics accuse the Orthodox of having an ecumenical council problem ("Why haven't you called one in 1,000 years? You can't!") when the Catholic communion doesn't strike me as a bastion of clarity on the matter, either.

The Catholic Church is clear on the matter. The problem here is not the Church but disobedient Catholics. And becuase the Pope wants to avoid another painful schism, this is not addressed as directly as some of us Traditionalists would like. I respect the Holy Father, and I understand his reasoning.

How do you know that is his reasoning? I'm not saying that you are necessarily wrong about it, but how do you know he isn't addressing this because he's trying to avoid schism? Has he said as much?

Well, the Pope believes in all the teachings of the Church and believes that all Catholics are bound to them. If this is true, and he doesn't excommunicate dissenting Bishops, the only thing I can think is that he is trying a softer pastoral approach for the good of the Church.

What if he believes "all the teachings of the Church" that Catholics are bound to are the first 7 Ecumenical Councils? What if he agrees with the Melkites? And his soft pastoral approach is actually towards Traditionalists, that instead of addressing this outright, ripping the band-aid off, he sees himself starting the trajectory towards reunion with the Orthodox more slowly, perhaps to keep more souls in his flock?

Would this not also be possible?

Nope. This is still him picking and choosing. What if an Eastern Orthodox Christian decided that only the first three councils were truly ecumencial? Would he still be an Eastern Orthodox Christian?

Although this is conjecture, perhaps the reasons why the Orthodox have failed to convene a true 'council' in the sense of the original ones of the Undivided Church is not due to the absence of an Orthodox emperor - but because the fathers of the east were not so enamored of themselves as to proclaim a council 'Ecumenical' when there was in fact no longer an Undivided Church?A seat was empty in Pentarchy because of the schism.

This is not inconsistent with our proclamation that we are the Church of the Fathers, perhaps it is a modest nod to the reality of the world. After all Jesus teaches us to welcome the prodigal and to slay the fatted calf and make joy upon his return - rather than to sulk and brood like the loyal brother.

I thought the reason that the EO church has not called such a council was that they believe that there has been no need for one. Correct me if I am wrong.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false?

This question only applies if the Melkites consider it to be a dogma.

Relatedly, and this may be a stupid question so apologies if it is, but do Melkites consider VI to be an Ecumenical Council? If they don't, wouldn't they not consider it a dogma?

Not a stupid question at all, and no they don't.

Okay, then another potentially stupid question ( ):

I find it pretty confusing that different churches can be in the same communion without recognizing the same # of Ecumenical Councils, especially when the discrepancy is as huge as Roman Catholics recognizing 21, and others recognizing only 7. If the canons of these councils are dogma, then it seems pretty mission-critical to be in agreement on what's Ecumenical and what isn't.

So I guess my question is... How does this work in the Catholic Church? How is it functional?

I suppose the answer to my question is: not very well.

I find it amazing that Catholics accuse the Orthodox of having an ecumenical council problem ("Why haven't you called one in 1,000 years? You can't!") when the Catholic communion doesn't strike me as a bastion of clarity on the matter, either.

The Catholic Church is clear on the matter. The problem here is not the Church but disobedient Catholics. And becuase the Pope wants to avoid another painful schism, this is not addressed as directly as some of us Traditionalists would like. I respect the Holy Father, and I understand his reasoning.

How do you know that is his reasoning? I'm not saying that you are necessarily wrong about it, but how do you know he isn't addressing this because he's trying to avoid schism? Has he said as much?

Well, the Pope believes in all the teachings of the Church and believes that all Catholics are bound to them. If this is true, and he doesn't excommunicate dissenting Bishops, the only thing I can think is that he is trying a softer pastoral approach for the good of the Church.

What if he believes "all the teachings of the Church" that Catholics are bound to are the first 7 Ecumenical Councils? What if he agrees with the Melkites? And his soft pastoral approach is actually towards Traditionalists, that instead of addressing this outright, ripping the band-aid off, he sees himself starting the trajectory towards reunion with the Orthodox more slowly, perhaps to keep more souls in his flock?

Would this not also be possible?

Nope. This is still him picking and choosing. What if an Eastern Orthodox Christian decided that only the first three councils were truly ecumencial? Would he still be an Eastern Orthodox Christian?

So, by your definition, to be truly Catholic you must believe there have been 21 Ecumenical Councils? (I'm sorry if I'm coming across as snarky... I always worry that the Internet will misconstrue my intended tone. I'm not trying to pick on you or be a jerk, honest.)

I really wonder then, if the Pope feels the same way you do, why he continues to be in communion with those that disagree. It certainly lends truth to Yves Congar's assertion that in the RCC, schism is viewed as worse than heresy.

According to the Roman Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, when the Eastern Orthodox celebrate the Eucharist, "'the Church of God is built up and grows in stature', for in every valid celebration of the Eucharist the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church becomes truly present." [Communionis Notio, n. 17]

Even the CDF holds that the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is present wherever the Eucharist is validly celebrated.

« Last Edit: April 27, 2012, 02:14:52 PM by Apotheoun »

Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."St. Theodore Studite

Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is.

As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church.

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following: "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]

Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.

And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.

This whole thing is kind of shocking coming from someone in full communion with Rome. unless Im totally confused.

PP

The patriarchate of which I am a member is in full communion with Rome, as the Melkite Catholic Patriarch (and the Holy Synod) has affirmed many times. Nevertheless, as the Melkite Patriarch said in the address I posted some time ago, we do not accept the later councils of the Roman Church as ecumenical.

Then IMHO communion is belittled by this and was political, in nature, and not a conviction of spirit.

I find it pretty silly that you can be in communion with an asterisk beside it.

I am a communicant with the Orthodox Chuch because I believe fully in its teachings. If I were not, I would not.

PP

The fact that you misunderstand the nature of ecclesial communion apparently rejecting the idea that it involves a reciprocal relationship between two (or more) Churches is sad, but there is probably little I can do to correct your error on this point.

Nevertheless, I would suggest that you read the book "His Broken Body" by Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck, because he gives a good summary of the patristic understanding of communion.

This little paper, posted by SCOBA on its website, a Joint Statement of the North American Catholic Orthodox Diolouge, as it relates the Orthodox position on that body reflects my strong, personal beliefs. A few excerpts may illustrate an important point here:

"In such a communion of (reunited Roman and Orthodox) Churches, the role of the bishop of Rome would have to be carefully defined, both in continuity with the ancient structural principles of Christianity and in response to the need for a unified Christian message in the world of today. Although the details of that role would have to be worked out in a synodal way, and would require a genuine willingness on both sides to accommodate one another’s concerns, a few likely characteristics of this renewed Roman primacy would be these:

a) The bishop of Rome would be, by ancient custom, the “first” of the world’s bishops and of the regional patriarchs. His “primacy of honor” would mean, as it meant in the early Church, not simply honorific precedence but the authority to make real decisions, appropriate to the contexts in which he is acting. His relationship to the Eastern Churches and their bishops, however, would have to be substantially different from the relationship now accepted in the Latin Church. The present Eastern Catholic Churches would relate to the bishop of Rome in the same way as the present Orthodox Churches would. The leadership of the pope would always be realized by way of a serious and practical commitment to synodality and collegiality.

b) In accord with the teaching of both Vatican councils, the bishop of Rome would be understood by all as having authority only within a synodal/collegial context: as member as well as head of the college of bishops, as senior patriarch among the primates of the Churches, and as servant of universal communion. The “ordinary and immediate” jurisdiction of every bishop within his particular Church, would be “affirmed, strengthened and vindicated” by the exercise of the bishop of Rome’s ministry (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 27; cf. Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus 3). In a reunited Church, this understanding of papal and episcopal authority, as complementary and mutually enhancing, would have to be expanded to include the much more complex patterns of local, primatial, and patriarchal leadership that have developed in the Eastern Churches since patristic times.

http://www.scoba.us/articles/towards-a-unified-church.html

I suspect that the Melkite Church and at least the BCC based on her catechism material, would generally concur with the Orthodox statement, only adding that they believe that they have found a way in which to achieve what the Orthodox seek. While I disagree, I respect them.

I do not understand Roman Catholics who find NO WAY to do anything except concur in all of the tortured and logically inconsistent interpretations of the teachings of the Roman Church which deal with supremacy and infallibility. Their view of unity with us is consistent with Grant's terms to Robert E. Lee. I've said that before....

Some of you will no doubt have to conclude that a future Pope and a future Roman Church which might find a path to real unity with the Orthodox have abandoned the Catholic faith and you will be sedevacantists and defenders of Isa's favorite pejorative- ultramontanism. Don't worry though, you will have counterparts from Orthodoxy should that occur and you will all be able to continue your back and forths with even more vigor.

As much as it is painful to admit as much, it seems that the most some of us are able to concede is that holding hands and singing Amazing Grace is fun, but not too effective in promoting real unity.

A faithful Catholic could not support a unity that is false, and not grounded in Truth. Either the Catholic Church teaches the truth, or it does not.

So if the Pope and his Synod - the college of Cardinals - were to concur that a union based upon the principles stated above were to happen and that it was the will of the Holy Spirit that the time for all to be one was at hand - and he so proclaimed saying clearly he was speaking 'ex cathedra' and stated explicitly stating that this determination was consistent with the Magesterium of the Catholic Church - you would accept it and submit to the revised definition of Papal authority.

According to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, when the Eastern Orthodox celebrate the Eucharist, "'the Church of God is built up and grows in stature', for in every valid celebration of the Eucharist the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church becomes truly present." [Communionis Notio, n. 17]

I agree that the Church of Christ becomes present there in the sacraments. I just don't believe that the those communing are members of the Church.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.